Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We've all heard of it. But what is it? Our first hint might come from the logo.
Just The Facts
- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
- Wikipedia has over ten million registered users.
- Over 95 percent of those users are retarded.
What is it?
As those of you who read the facts already know, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The scope of the articles are wide ranging; from this one on some battle in Pennsylvania to this one on some lake in California to this one on Mario Kart. For every article, there are dozens of editors who have taken the time to research, verify, and cite all the information they insert.
Oh, Sorry...
We got carried away there for a second. Wikipedia is actually a giant magnet for spam and hoaxes. To understand why, imagine a giant wall.
Now, imagine that you write anything you wanted on it, without anyone knowing who you were.
You see where this is going.
But why does it matter?
Almost every school child uses Wikipedia to study for essays and tests. Some scientists use it to collect baseline data. Hell, it was even cited in a court case (although that was thankfully thrown out on appeal). So it's dangerous when, during a case to decide if your prostitution ring/crack cocaine smuggling operation is defendable under the first amendment, someone edits the article about you from "He is an upstanding citizen who saved 200 lives and loves freedom" to "He had sex with a camel", and the jury rules based on that.
Don't scientists, um, run experiments to collect data? I thought that's the *definition* of science.
ReplyThe good ones do, but often they cite Wikipedia to get baseline information.
When you have seen the number of pointless edit wars, articles protected by "gatekeepers" (individuals preventing anyone adding to the article, even if you improve it) d******d admins, and other nonsense then you will see the true face of wikipedia.
ReplyThere is a reason I left.
"Many scientists use it to collect data" Who are these "many scientists"? If you cited Wikipedia in a scientific paper you would be laughed out of your field.
Reply"it was even cited in a court case" Thrown out in appeal. Not the first ridiculous piece of evidence thrown out on an appeal.
"Almost every school child uses Wikipedia to study for essays and tests" At their own risk. You still have to take and pass the test, you can't site Wikipedia as a source in school, academia or anywhere else that requires real research. Still, more likely than not, Wikipedia is going to give you an essentially factual overview of the subject. It's not guaranteed, and some of it could be false, but that's why you use your own sources for academia or journalism or any piece of genuine research.
There are likely some subjects that get inundated with rumor and false information, but probably not the boring stuff, like American History. Not that Wikipedia should be used as a history book, but to satisfy casual curiosity, it's fine. There isn't an army of malicious jerks constantly editing Wikipedia and inserting false information into every entry, but there are surely a few. It isn't and doesn't claim to be an unimpeachable source.
If you have a casual curiosity about a given subject, it might satisfy that curiosity, but if you want to know more about that subject or research it in earnest, you go the library. I think Wikipedia is a great resource, and although a lot of people may mistake it for a more rigorous one, this doesn't tend to be the case where information is used institutionally. I think it's great that Wikipedia inspires people to pursue their curiosity and make discoveries that the wouldn't have ordinarily.
Most people aren't inclined to look up something in the Encyclopedia but a lot of people are inclined to Wiki it. I'd rather that they be curious than indifferent. I think Wikipedia inspires people to be curious.
"Many scientists use it to collect data" Who are these "many scientists"? If you cited Wikipedia in a scientific paper you would be laughed out of your field.
The guy clearly overheard it at a bar (or, alternately, on /b), so of course it's true. Some articles do have accuracy problems, but wikipedia flags these articles and edits them. If anybody spouting hearsay about wikipedia had a look at some of the more professional talk pages, they'd know that the majority of its contributors practice academic rigor, and the moderators weed out individual viewpoints and weasel words to avoid bias.
Hell, if a person wants a more penetrative look at a subject, they should sign up with Jstor or an online journal. That way they'd know first hand what was going on in the field of interest.
Still, they should also bear in mind that nothing created by a collective is 100% accurate. Even well-researched text books will have a few errors here and there.
Scientists occasionally use wikipedia to get baseline information. My point is that our culture has come to accept wikipedia as "fact" often without checking the claims, even when they are thoroughly outrageous. And given that hundreds of thousands of people view it, even a single hoax lasting only an hour can reach hundreds of people on the right page.
I was an active editor at wikipedia for 7 months, and in that time I spent literally weeks cleaning up malicious edits. Trolls love to find innocuous pages and insert all sorts of stupid just for "lulz". It got to the point where I would go on 4chan just to watch for the threads about messing with wikipedia so I could preemptively warn mods and revert the page.
In addition, many people simply edit with completely pure intentions, but fail to fully check their facts. Now, this is fixed pretty quickly on big pages, but on minor pages the edits can go unnoticed for weeks or even months. For example, the article on my hometown -- a small (but not that small) town near San Francisco -- incorrectly listed the date of incorporation as 1971 instead of 1931. This matters to almost no one, but for those who do need to know about my town, it is pure misinformation -- no better then lies. And because most casual users simply take wikipedia at face value without checking out the citations, mistakes and trolling can spread into the common knowledge and mess things up quite nicely for a lot of people.
radicallibertarians blogspot com 2006 03 wikipedia-power-of-individualism html
ReplyWikipedia is really not the bad. Only on issues like living people or environmentalism is it going to be edited 74 times a day.
ReplyI learned from wikipedia that Abraham Lincon had a very delicious penis. [citation needed]